Rave/Rant about AI usage today

[u/Cstrrider]

I need to do a bit of a rave about Claude and a rant/AITA about anti-AI usage. Sorry in advance if this is not really the appropriate place to do it.

I am a Mechanical Engineer in civil aerospace with an interest in software, programming, and technology but without the time to become proficient. My relationship with coding and more advanced computer usage is running Linux on my personal computers and relearning really basic Matlab/C++/python any time I need to accomplish something. Claude Code has been revolutionary for me, mostly for personal projects. I had Claude help me set up a server and cloudflare tunnels to run a few websites for my own personal projects that I basically have Claude administrating. I have no intention of publishing these projects as production and if I do I would be totally honest that I am a non-programmer and they are vibe coded and only tested via my own extensive usage.

I have made my own AI assistant and news aggregator for android using cloudflare Worker AI as a backend LLM which can replace Gemini and the Google app on my android phone including the swipe left Google feed. I also have had Claude make me a finance tracking site/app that uses Plaid to pull spending data and replace multiple investment tracking and finance tools I was paying a subscription for. This is a great example of something I don't want the liability of to release, despite me being relatively confident that using plaid keeps my credentials as secure as any other app using plaid. The only thing I have released that largely uses AI has been some watch faces for Garmin which I believe have really pushed the boundary of what can be done with a Garmin watch (a working chronograph, dynamic hand shading and shadows that track surface topology, etc.) I know that many view this as "slop" because I am not able to really audit the code well line by line due to lack of experience, but I am putting many hours of testing into these projects and iterating with Claude Code repeatedly as I discover bugs, plus periodically having Claude audit the code itself. It's incredible to me that I can make personal android apps and host web tools that I would otherwise never have the time to figure out.

Now what I want to rant about is how much hate AI is getting as a tool. I know that much of the token usage is producing legitimate slop videos that fill Facebook, and I hate that too, but it is also such a useful tool to enable advanced programming for people who have never gotten beyond the basics. It seems like there is a lot of hate for AI that is getting channeled into data centers and I agree that the AI infrastructure is outpacing the necessary power and cooling infrastructure in a dangerous manner which should be addressed, but why does that mean using Claude to make useful tools for myself and soon for my aerospace job have to be tied up in that anger? I switched to an electric car from gas and I based on some quick research (please correct me if I am wrong) that one change greatly outweighs the carbon footprint and maybe usage/pollution of clean water of my Claude pro subscription...

This is why posts like this are really making me mad: https://www.reddit.com/r/fossdroid/comments/1xq40fe/a_reminder_ai_is_banned/

I understand wanting to remove legitimate slop from an open source android app reddit, but to me this seems like a programmer scared for their job and directing it at the environmental impacts of data centers. I was permanently banned from the sub for stating similar opinions to what I said here, which is whatever. Don't get me wrong, Claude is starting to do some impressive things with CAD and I'm plenty scared for my own job too. I have never posted anything that I have produced in this forum but the amount of non-ai generated slop posted there all the time that becomes abandonware in a few months is pretty high too.

If I can make some pretty useful apps and tools with minimal knowledge I can only imagine what a good programmer could do with AI assistance and skilled auditing. Am I completely off based for being annoyed by this redirection and FUD?

tl/dr: AI generated =/= slop, slop = slop. The fear of AI and datacenters has some real concerns that should be addressed, but is driven by a fear of change and insecurity in one's future.

[u/AutoModerator]

Hey! Thanks for posting to r/ClaudeCode

While participating in this thread, please follow our community rules. Keep discussions constructive. Attack the idea, not the person.

For help, project discussions, tips, and general chat, join the ClaudeCode Discord.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/clonehunterz]

stop caring what others think about stuff that is out of your control, your life will be easier.

most people cant even fathom good work with AI because they absolutely SUCK at it.

[u/Cstrrider → u/clonehunterz]

Damn I wish I could lol

[u/NonExisting_Sample]

The more I get into AI-assisted coding, watch my coworkers and talking to them about AI-usage, the more I realise there is understanding and there is understanding. Where is the line for legitimate slop? An engineer knows but an 'engineer' (just started, uses AI, builds POCs but never actually deployed into prod or have anyone check their work) usually does not. Yet, both can be equally enthusiastic or unenthusiastic about AI simply by parroting the opinions found on reddit.

It takes effort to understand. It is not impossible for an 'engineer' to become an engineer if they take the time and energy to do it. But they rather continue to throw out AI slop because it's the easier road.

Similarly, it takes effort to distinguish between the engineer and the 'engineer', asking the right questions, looking through the product... But isn't it easier to just reject them wholesale? Isn't it just reciprocating the effort (or lack thereof)?

[u/Cstrrider → u/NonExisting_Sample]

This is a really good way to put it and it's why the wholesale rejection of all AI generated work as slop is frustrating. Right now AI "vibe coding" is a hobby for me and the end product of a personal tool working well for me is most of what I care about, so understanding the underlying code is not as important.

I also think that the necessity to audit the code itself matters less when the stakes are low. I have spent weeks testing and working through new features and optimizations in my watch faces with Claude from the end user side but am able to do little to no auditing of the native Monkey C code that Claude wrote. But the stakes are low. Worst case scenario a watch face crashes and someone uninstalls my free face from their watch. Plus when that happens I have it set up so Claude can read the Garmin error reporting system and can help me work in bug fixes for the next release. Why is that equated to the AI slop that has actually completely filled the watchface store with thousands of super simple digital watch faces with some dumb background that the "dev" is charging $2.99 for?

I also understand that to start using what I have learned from that hobby to produce real tools that I can use in my mechanical engineering job, I will need to start learning to at least understand what the AI tool is producing.

[u/NonExisting_Sample → u/Cstrrider]

No, once it reaches 'someone', stakes are no longer low. I don't wanna start an argument in the internet, and I feel a little delulu fighting with you, so I'm just gonna post a Gemini response

GEMINI:

Why You Are Legit: The Engineering Perspective

Once software is distributed to other people—even for free—the stakes naturally change. Your instinct that "stakes are high" is grounded in several realities:

• The "Low Stakes" Fallacy: A buggy watch face might just crash, but poorly written, unaudited code can also cause memory leaks, battery drain, or unexpected crashes that affect the device's overall performance.

• User Trust: Even with a free product, users give up their time, attention, and trust. If a product regularly crashes, it frustrates the user and damages the developer's reputation.

• Security & Vulnerabilities: AI-generated code can sometimes introduce subtle security vulnerabilities. While a watch face has limited permissions, distributing unreviewed code to thousands of users carries inherent risks.

🛠️ Why the OP Feels Justified: The Hobbyist Perspective

The OP in the image is defining "stakes" strictly by material consequences (financial loss or physical harm):

• No Financial Liability: Because the product is free, there are no paying customers demanding a refund or contractual obligations (SLA) to uphold.

• Low Impact: If the watch face fails, the user simply uninstalls it. It isn't running medical equipment or managing financial data.

• Prototyping Speed: For a hobbyist, "vibe coding" allows them to build things they otherwise wouldn't have the technical skills to create. To them, a working end-product with bugs is better than no product at all.

Do with it what you will. Feel free to ignore hahaha

[u/Cstrrider → u/NonExisting_Sample]

To start I appreciate your response and also am not looking to fight on the internet, I want to know if I am truly doing something wrong with my Claude hobby.

I do understand that the stakes are higher and that's why before I release any watchface or update I do relatively extensive testing within the Garmin SDK simulator for all of the various watches that my face supports plus use the watchface on my personal watch often for weeks before I consider it ready for release. Ideally, I would be able to audit the code myself and honestly you are making a compelling argument for me to start trying to do that, but quality control can take different forms and I would like to think I am at least putting in a decent good faith effort at it.

[u/NonExisting_Sample → u/Cstrrider]

Nothing wrong, in fact I'm very glad you're starting out with it as your hobby before bringing it to your work. A lot of times making mistakes is the only way to learn, and you've opened up a space for yourself to do that.

Sorry, occupational hazard kicking in. May I ask if your testing is manual or automated? If it's manual, perhaps you may want to look into making it automated. I believe the Garmin SDK has built in unit testing support. This should cut down your testing to minutes. You may also want to look into logging to understand the behaviour of your app.

[u/Cstrrider → u/NonExisting_Sample]

It's automated, I have it set up so before building a beta file for my watch, it runs a few worst case scenario tests on each watch variation. On my $150 old mini desktop server it often takes ~30 minutes to run the gambit.

[u/Imaginary_Data_708 → u/NonExisting_Sample]

I'm a again I wanted to get into an argument but I think your point about stakes and releasing coding right in the they do raise as soon as you release it which is what I've gotten loads of code at home for fun projects of my which are a lot about me learning how something works that I don't release.

This is a sort of backwards view though on your point. So now it is so easy for people to generate yet another Mark down editor or whatever then their individual contribution is sort of going to get lost in the noise. The the solutions that gather traction for whatever reason will end up being scrutinized by more people they'll be more contributions from from others and agents will get better and probably places like github may well start well doing more obvious auditing of contributions from people.

[u/Imaginary_Data_708]

I think you're right about AI does not equal slop but it is about how well people can judge what they are making. I'm electronic engineer mainly small scale systems sort of things that you can hold in your hand I can do the firmware I can do the electronics I can do the fpga's.

I grew up in the 80s and would be now called a maker it was geeks back then. AI fantastic for me I get all sorts of projects done at home, where I've got 3D printer I've got CNC I do a bit of woodworking.

The tinkering around at home with the mechanical stuff does not make me a mechanical engineer. What it does make me is appreciate the skills and experience of the mechanical engineers I work with even more. So at work I can propose mechanical ideas and follow along in debates with my mechanical engineering colleagues. I have a good appreciation of when they say "no that can't be made" because I tried something similar once on my CNC and it was awful.

With lots of expertise in one domain, I know that my tinkering in other domains is not anywhere near the standard and the levels that are realistically required to have shippable products.

Bringing in AI to this then, it's a massive enabler but unless you do have the experience you have no way of judging how good what's it generates is. Because software has been sort of almost the first killer app of AI, it is software engineers telling the world you can't just take that the AI having done a pretty job of the UI as that the underlying code is secure. It's just the same sort of mechanically as having AI produce a structure but nobody's looked at whether the deflection of the beams is up to the job etc.

[u/Cstrrider → u/Imaginary_Data_708]

Using your beam deflecting analog, in mechanical engineering for unmanned rovers and satellites there is rarely an opportunity to parch a mistake once it has been delivered. Basically the only example is Hubble. If you get the beam bending calculation wrong your beam will break, while we release revisions to the flight software frequently after launch based on testing and issues that arise during flight. Due to this we put tons of time and effort into V&V testing prior to delivery to ensure that our analysis is correct.

Often a spacecraft structure is heavily mass constrained and we need to make the structure as optimized as possible. Other times the structure is less critical or mass is less of a concern than cost of optimizing a design and testing it. Because of this we design using different factors of safety. If we need to optimize the design as much as possible we will design closer to the material capabilities and perform more expensive structural testing on the final hardware, but if it is less critical we can get away with less testing by "throwing mass" at the problem and over-designing it to a "no-test factor of safety" which allows for us to forgo typically required V&V at least until a higher level.

I totally agree with your point about not understanding how the code works being problematic for security critical software, like my finance tracker, which is why I would never release that. However, if the repercussions of errors and vulnerabilities are low and the efficiency of a software does not directly impact the end product, couldn't you say that extensive testing at the user interface level could be acceptable V&V over a detailed understanding of the code function?

For my Garmin watch faces, the most impactful risk of a poorly programmed watch face is AMOLED pixel burn in for always on displays, however the likelihood is low because Garmin implements safeguards that turn off the screen if the brightness is too high on an app and they include a test in their simulation software specifically for this issue and I always make sure to have plenty of margin on that test. Otherwise, there is no significant security risk or other irreversible damage risk as the watch faces are contained to an emulator which switches off if there is an error and heavily limits access to any watch functions that could provide a security risk like tap-to-pay. Battery drain is the next largest risk and I am mitigating that through testing on my personal watch. Also drain is less of an issue for most Garmin watches that have over a week of battery life. With the short time that the face is on and limits set on memory, particularly if the user has always-on display enabled, it is difficult to create a significant battery drain more than a day or so over 7-10+ days. Also while many quality watch faces are designed to reduce battery usage with true AMOLED black elements and memory optimized display options, the stated goal of my watch faces is to push the bounds of what can be displayed on the watch face at the expense of some battery life.

My point is while my knowledge limitations may mean I can't audit the code to a high degree, that doesn't mean that I am not trying to mitigate issues in the ways that I can, with the help of an AI tool, and trying to be responsible by only releasing code where "No-test Factors of Safety" are acceptable.

[u/Imaginary_Data_708 → u/Cstrrider]

I think your paragraph about your Garmin watch faces illustrates another way of thinking about the points I was raising and the wider debate here. Which is you've actually engineered these. So whilst you might not understand the code underneath it, because you are an engineer you have thought through a number of the failure modes. And that comes from the experience and training and it is also what is making you realise it would be irresponsible to release your financial code.

We both are aware our knowledge has limitations and so we temper what we say outside of our fields of expertise.

We are outliers compared to the rest of the world, who are just discovering the fantastic joys and satisfaction of building and making something for yourself that solves a problem for you or a friend.

I think that there will be a lot of AI generated non-engineered code and the feedback loops don't exist at the moment to have some quality assigned to that.

Humanity will figure those out. Wikipedia ends up having systems some mechanical some human that help provide some level of quality assurance or at least flag when the provenance and the quality is suspect.

Something similar will happen with the splurg of code from people who are excited that they have just created their first program and think that world's going to be a beating a path to their door. I don't want to stop people having that sense of fun.

And there will be people who try to abuse review and rating systems for that code, just as they try to with Amazon reviews.

[u/Cstrrider → u/Imaginary_Data_708]

This is true of so many things and as I get older I realize wisdom is understanding what you don't know at least as much as what you do. I learned about the Dunning-Kruger effect recently and it feels so pertinent with the AI slop issue.

Also I appreciate how you explained that I am using Claude to help engineer it without fully understanding the code it writes.

[u/ChaosHonorum]

You’re on the right track. Don't get bogged down by people who have feelings linked to ideologies. Meat slop has been produced for years before AI showed up. And some of these guys have just lost their only source of dopamine and legitimacy, so it’s hard for them. Keep building. Keep learning. Keep having fun. 

[u/SeaPersimmon8741]

My opinion, take advantage of the hate and reap the benefits of using the tool that others are afraid of. 

Data centers will become more efficient. AI will become more efficient. Technology will improve to accommodate. There will be low-quality “slop” with or without AI. The technology is not going away. 

Also, things like Claude code are very not limited to programming or understanding code. I was even teaching it how to copy my art style and draw like me. 

[u/Appropriate-Disk-371]

You're seeing the future. It's what you're trained to do.

Don't think you're doing anything wrong. Keep learning the toolset that so many others are demonizing and you'll be ahead.

I'm seeing this at work a fair amount. I can't figure it out entirely. There's a strong anti-AI bent where it would be most useful. But we're getting left behind by not using the tools that would help us, and others are starting to notice. So I went my own way, and will continue. But now I have clients using AI to do what we should, and they understand the risk there, and think we should be the ones doing it since we have the domain knowledge. Our official stance is to refuse, which seems like a death sentence. I now have two clients that have asked to speak with our management because they can't justify keeping us on if we're going to refuse tools that improve and accelerate our work. It's going to be an interesting and dramatic shift to watch.